From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [patch 09/11] forcedeth: improve NAPI logic Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:24:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4630EE50.4000109@garzik.org> References: <200704260723.l3Q7NNCj023844@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <4630B76C.7070603@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu To: Ayaz Abdulla Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:60279 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031410AbXDZSYZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:24:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4630B76C.7070603@nvidia.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Ayaz Abdulla wrote: > I don't see why the NAPI handler needs to process tx packets. The ISR > will handle all tx processing. It is a design choice, not a requirement. Moving non-RX interrupt processing to the NAPI handler can help as loads increase. The basic idea is to do as much work as possible in the NAPI handler with NIC interrupts masked. That mitigates global system per-interrupt overhead even more than an only-RX NAPI scheme. Several net drivers do TX completion handling in the NAPI handler. Jeff